become my nightly reading. as you peel away the layers and you started putting them against the different areas that jake was guiding us, it was very clear which ones needed to be brought up and which ones needed behalf graded lower. i think the list you have in front of you is a very strong less. -- list. [chime] president buell: thank you. >> mike. just to remind folks, we need everyone to take d.c., please. >> i served as the landscape architect. i just want to keep it brief and to mention that i feel the selection process was very fair.

some projects that were not selected did receive higher scores, hub of a lot of those projects did not fulfill the selection criteria as was outlined. in terms of what was selected, i feel that these projects did a fantastic job in terms of meeting every criteria that was required on the list independent of their score that we have -- that we may have come up with in the end. i feel that the recommendations that we made our solid recommendations. -- are solid recommendations. >> good afternoon,

commissionaires. -- commissioners. we work with both of the capital and operations program to put together the community garden. we submitted our application to the committee, they apply the criteria. there is one set of scores for these. there was no subsequent ranking after the discussion. then there were some talks, and we were not recommended for funding. i met with jake. the concerns that were put forward a scene to do with operations. we fulfill the operations requirement which is to work with the supervisor and acting superintendent.

i got his signature. there are for the things to work out. he is committed to working with us. we have an mlu in place, it just needs to be modified. these are things that can be worked out while we are being funded. we feel that our project, because it came in first, it should be funded in the first round. i just want to say that it is the mayor's directive to have education, to have you guys make that happen for the community. when a school pta is encouraged all the way along by operations capital to submit against the highest score and

are not funded, there is a problem with the process. >> can you tell me what the amount was? >> we apply for $198,000. >> is that money in place now? >> yes. >> i think that we can get staff to comment on this. if they can comment on what has been said. >> we have talked about this i think that in describing the overall selection process, the point at which the project was scored first is when the individual scores were reported

that. as the committee work to the process of adhering to the criteria, several issues, some had to do with the details of the application. some had to do with issues of governance and access to the property. as those issues came up, take committee and bounced the project and it did not meet the current criteria as well as the projects that we have recommended. >> i would hate to see someone to go through all of this and be ready to go on an issue that i personally find important. are there ways to mitigate the

concerns of the committee so that in the next round this might have some opportunity? >> i have copies of the committee's representation. the director of operations is committed to helping. >> but don't want to get into too many specifics but there's more to this process than the scoring. i have some concerns about the public access to the park. i hope that the petitioners will work this out. there's more to this than just the scoring issue. your application was very strong and very well done. i like it and i am sure that many other people like it but

there were other factors during discussion that came off that did not score as high. i hope that does not preclude you from a second to go round. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i would like to congratulate commissioner harrison and the staff. it looks like a lot of work went into this and nothing but good is coming out of the other end of the process. congratulations. >> i just would like to echo your congratulations and a time of scarce resources and some challenging decisions we have to make, this is nothing but good news. this is the product of the commitment to our parks and the

park spawned in which a very good decision was made to put aside a pot of money for community-driven projects. this is the first round of funding, the first fruit of that seat that was planted. i would like to thank our staff who really shepherded the community opportunity fund task force in cooperation with meredith thomas. i don't remember every single committee that participated but these are very challenging conversations. even though we have $5 million, we have maybe 100 times the need. it just designing a program was about how we were going to if a minister the program in a monumental and delivered his undertaking. i would like to offer my thanks to jake. in one of the smartest moves we

have made, we actually hired him. he has come on with great talent and experience. he has shepherded this process incredibly well. i would also like to think commissioner harrison and other members of the selection committee to all the time that they spent considering these applications. whether a neighborhood group was awarded funding. i would like to thank those who took the time to apply. these are our park and the community leaders. everyone who applied are the folks who are most committed to stretching every dollar we can in this tough climate and making these neighborhoods as seen and safe as they can. this first round was $500,000.

there are more projects to come. i would like to celebrate what is really 8 miniparks initiative. >> thank you. with that, we can entertain a motion. >> move to improve. >> seconded. >> any comments? >> this passes unanimously. >> i think that it is great to give some money away. >> we are on item number nine, central subway union square. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the central subway program manager. i am joined by the underground design manager. i am pleased to present the revised entrance for your review

and consideration. to give the commission a bit of background, the subway has presented. this was selected as part of the process. the second time on february 21st, 2008, when the finding of minor impact on washington square park. it is our belief that this design that will be presented addresses the committee's desire to minimize the footprint on the union square park's. as compared to the previous design which was approved during the in burma. processed. central subway has conducted

five briefings on proposed design and has successfully received the endorsement from the business improvement district on the design that will be presented. the revised design has also been presented to the advisory group meeting. we have responded to the questions and concerns. also from a business perspective, they have the fair market value for the loss of the temporary and permanent space in the union square rosh. central subway has also employed the services of the original landscape architect, to design the park lay out. this will continue to work with the community and present future plans as we designed the plan process. with that, i would like to turn

the presentation over. >> i don't think that your microphone is on. if you can speak into the other one for the moment. >> i would like to go through the presentation of the union square entrance four union square market street for the central subway. what you see in front of you, this is the engineering configuration in which the station is located and extended between market street and the theory.

we have the escalators and stairs located on jury -- on geary. this would result in no identity to the station if they were separate and we would like to combine the two. by doing so, we have the opportunity to locate an emergency ventilation shaft at the location of the old elevators. this is the new configuration, the new layout. the station is deep and is

connected to the concourse level which is right below the street level and from their distribution will go from between the market street area and union square. the area in question is the southwest corner of the union square and we go into more detail of the configuration. what we have identified is the location which is the back of the house of the union square where the emergency stairs from the garage are at the same location for the tunnel and for the station. with this rendering and this configuration, we cut the ventilation shaft into the steps from the stockton street side and will be met and governed by

the planting which would be covering it. this would match the retaining wall which would exist. i would like to show you the view which would be from the park itself and the additional structured. what you would see is the outline. we have seen those and this is what you would see upon completion. from the steps, we go behind the bushes. what you see is the outline of the structure. also what you will see is the extension of the structure. from the corner of the street, this is the view as it is right

now today and you will see a lot of planting and a lot of icy. we will extend them to cover this also and make it part. we would provide a set of stairs, one elevator for access. we have worked with the union square business improvement district and this is acceptable and would minimize the impact on the park. what you would see is a bird's- eye view of the entrance. also a close-up from the top which would have over the escalator. this is modeled similar to paris metro.

to be able to provide entrance, we would go to the parking side. in addition, we would have an additional impact on some additional spots. the duration would be six-nine months. >> i have a question for you before we get to public testimony. the parking places that are taking out, let me congratulate you on the redesign.

this has less impact than the original. i congratulate you. the 90 spaces that are taken out will affect the revenue stream of the department. is this calculated in and are we getting compensated for the loss of those spaces? >> the answer is yes. the value of that property, both the temporary and permanent, will be appraised buying independent appraiser. >> do we get an annual check back or is this a one time annuity? >> that is your choice. >> to be determined. that is in the language of the resolution i hope. >> i want to make sure if reflects the fact that we are

being assured that there will be a financial instrument that makes us all. >> yes. >> ok. with that, commissioner lee. >> just to clarify and your motion, your amendment, what is the mechanism by which we would be made whole? >> to be determined. whether this is a one time or annual, i don't know what the right instrument is. >> we absolutely would want to take the money over time. it does not help the department to have a one time lump-sum payment. this is the annual revenue to us and we would want to continue with that. we would want to finance this to find the details of what that will look like. i have been told that that is possible for them to do for us.

>> are we entitled to any more enumerations run due to the loss of revenue from the parking structure. >> that is not something that we are aware of yet but this is a conversation with having. >> and seems that the plan in front of us at significantly impact the property and revenues. i am wondering if this is the best deal that we can get or can we go back and negotiate all of the terms that we have been discussing off the cuff here in terms of the repayment schedule and the encroachment fees that perhaps would be negotiated. >> absolutely.

>> i think that we can instruct that that be the case. we are getting into some gray areas on how one values encroachments of the areas. the compensation, depending on who you talk to, you might think that they are improving the quality of life by putting the station there. >> it is incumbent on us to exercise our fiduciary duty. >> would this come back to the parks department general fund? >> yes, this would replace the lost revenue.

we did annual revenue from union square grosz, the annuity would backfill that lost revenue in the general fund. >> ok. public comment? question afternoon, commissioners. we absolutely agree that there will be impacted union square as a result of this going in place. we are talking about an impact on park land. we want to make sure that they would have an impact on this park. first of all, there is a loss of revenue from the parking spaces that you get. there will be an additional impact on the park itself. more people will be moving the park more often.

i would encourage it to work with the staff to make sure that the park will look good. if it is slightly smaller, it will serve the needs of the people by having really well maintained areas. i would encourage an additional approval. pending the mitigation agreement, being able to weigh in on the final design. we are looking to be a partner on this project. this will be a major impact on union square. >> have you been involved in reviewing the additional design? >> i came in at the point of the

revised design. >> i think they have made some real improvements. >> thank you. >> i continue to believe that this is a bad project for the mta and for the city. this is being done after the conclusion of the environment to review. i understand that there is concerns about the revenue which is subject to further negotiations. there is not uniform support in the city in chinatown or elsewhere in this city. i want this to be made clear. >> your opposition is from the ballpark all the way into chinatown.

>> i am opposed to the entire project. i hope that you know that they have not got the final federal commitment. there is $920 million here hoping to get. there is only three months left to get the money. i think it is foolish to have further expenditures. this list of what could be extended to fisherman's wharf. that is millions of dollars that could be saved now.

there is enormous opposition. many people who are opposed at don't really know anything about it. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> there are two issues. one, can we get the sponsors to talk back to the issue of funding and where we are in the funding stream? >> the central sub jet is based on the street light rail program. the first phase is in operation is primarily locally funded from

the current funding. 2/3 of the funding comes from the federal government under a program. they have received medium high ratings consistently. with the rating comes a commitment of funding. this is only awaiting the full funding agreement. >> the second question becomes the language that we want to put in and negotiating maximum extraction.

>> this is something more from that we can do? >> i would be delighted. >> is this something that we can work on in time for the next meeting to come up with some kind of agreement? >> i can certainly initiate a conversation to try to work through the financial details. i cannot promise you that we will have anything nailed down. >> i would like to start something a little bit more concrete. >> maybe we can do the minimum of